Federal Court. Was the Minister “required to consider the “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences” of the s 501(3) cancellation decision he was contemplating”? If so, was the non-applicability of the relevant ministerial direction (Direction No. 79) a “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequence” of the Minister’s s 501(3) decision that the Minister ought to have considered”?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was the Minister under an “obligation to consider the legal or procedural consequences as an antecedent matter in selecting to exercise the power to cancel the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3) as opposed to s 501(2), and in the circumstances of the Applicant’s case”?
Question 2: Was the Minister “required to consider the “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences” of the s 501(3) cancellation decision he was contemplating”?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is ‘yes’, was the non-applicability of the relevant ministerial direction (Direction No. 79) a “direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequence” of the Minister’s s 501(3) decision that the Minister ought to have considered”?
Question 4: Was an order by the Children’s Court of Victoria that the Applicant be detained for 18 months in a Youth Justice Centre “a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more” within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
Question 5: Can a failure to take into account non-refoulement obligations in the assessment of the national interest under s 501(3)(d) be characterised as a failure to take into account a mandatory relevant consideration?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: